Comments on: I'm not so sure about that warrant now http://www.notesfromandy.com/2010/04/27/im-not-so-sure-about-that-warrant-now/ Andy Lee's weblog Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:11:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Andy http://www.notesfromandy.com/2010/04/27/im-not-so-sure-about-that-warrant-now/comment-page-1/#comment-3103 Andy Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:12:52 +0000 http://www.notesfromandy.com/?p=197#comment-3103 <p>@bc,</p> <p>Thanks! I've seen a couple of blog commenters make the argument I outlined (though no bloggers yet that I'm aware of). Now I see there is a counterargument.</p> <p>I wonder what would be a scenario in which the last row of my table would apply, if not the Jason Chen scenario. Maybe I'll give it some thought later -- too much on my mind now.</p> @bc,

Thanks! I've seen a couple of blog commenters make the argument I outlined (though no bloggers yet that I'm aware of). Now I see there is a counterargument.

I wonder what would be a scenario in which the last row of my table would apply, if not the Jason Chen scenario. Maybe I'll give it some thought later — too much on my mind now.

]]> By: bc http://www.notesfromandy.com/2010/04/27/im-not-so-sure-about-that-warrant-now/comment-page-1/#comment-3102 bc Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:54:52 +0000 http://www.notesfromandy.com/?p=197#comment-3102 <p>IANAL... however, the <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00002000--aa007-.html" rel="nofollow">definition of "work product materials"</a> specifically excludes "contraband or the fruits of a crime or things otherwise criminally possessed." It follows that the iPhone prototype itself would not be considered a "work product material." So, whatever materials were seized are related to the criminal offense of receiving the stolen prototype (which, per this definition is not covered as a "work product material"). Therefore, "the offense to which the materials relate" does NOT consist of the receipt of "those materials." The iPhone is not a covered "material" in the first place, therefore, one can hardly claim that last exception as a defense.</p> IANAL… however, the definition of "work product materials" specifically excludes "contraband or the fruits of a crime or things otherwise criminally possessed." It follows that the iPhone prototype itself would not be considered a "work product material." So, whatever materials were seized are related to the criminal offense of receiving the stolen prototype (which, per this definition is not covered as a "work product material"). Therefore, "the offense to which the materials relate" does NOT consist of the receipt of "those materials." The iPhone is not a covered "material" in the first place, therefore, one can hardly claim that last exception as a defense.

]]>